Great Power contentions

[spmetla]

One can't help but observe that if such a mobilization were feasible in the first place, the fact might have laid a prohibitive threshold for escalation in Ukraine as a proximate concern. As Putin surely understands, one doesn't gin up a maximal response on the fly.

No, it doesn't happen on the fly which is why the current mobilizations should have started a few weeks ago. I imagine that if Putin chooses to invade it will start well before those 8500 US troops notified to prep for deployment have all their equipment and personnel ready to ship. That's why I keep stating that we should have a larger permanent presence in Europe again.

Right, it wasn't in the cards and no US admin would make this a priority. Not that I think they should, beyond emphasizing that the fall of Putin's government will become the formal policy of the US government should he invade. To build on my comment to Seamus, Russia has been conditioning its military capabilities and the political ground for this eventuality for 8 years, not including historical predispositions. Sending thousands of soldiers into a foreign land with whatever heavy equipment is on hand to offer assistance without coordination or preparation would make them little more than a sacrificial gesture to be cynically exploited toward greater future entanglement. And this observation doesn't even support a retroactive argument for much closer defense coordination with Ukraine since 2014, since that would have brought up Putin's timetable and shortened his opposition's, if attributing him the absolute will to dictate matters in Ukraine by force.

You are right, no admin would have made this a priority since Bush Sr, we've been dealing with people pretending that Europe is at the end of history and bad stuff can't happen to it anymore despite the Yugoslavian civil war, the Serbian genocide of the Kosovars, the Russia-Georgia war, the Russian invasion of Crimea, and the warfooting tensions.

As for sending 1000s of troops, why do assume that it would be done without coordination or preparation? I know you think poorly of the US military but you really think it'd be as daft as just driving into the Ukraine and setting up a defense independent of any coordination with Ukraine itself? Really?

It certainly wouldn't be a sacrificial gesture, much rather an overt and undeniable statement of where the 'line in the sand' is.

Once they achieve a foothold there is no opportunity cost for the PLA surely; almost by definition those legacy systems will have been thoroughly degraded at that stage, large (physically and logistically) and relatively exposed as they are. You're looking at this from a ground combat level, and as noted in the articles DoD takes the asymmetric view (even if they won't break the habit of enabling the most lucrative arms deals yet). Assuming some level of allied intervention in wartime, Taiwan's only logical option is to deny China any force concentrations on the main island by all means until help arrives. If Taiwan had to choose between zero tanks or zero missile boats, which would leave it less capable of self-defense? There's at least an argument for the F16s providing a few weeks' cover for total mobilization under interdiction, but other prestige systems...

I'm actually not thinking of this from a ground-combat role at all, once a good PLA foothold is established the likelyhood of Taiwan/Allied success is pretty much nill. Like I said, I see no scenario where US troops would be sent to retake Taiwan, the only possibility of success is deterring an invasion and if one happens to fight enough of a delaying action to allow the US and Japan primarily to come to its aid.
I don't know what specific platforms you're thinking of as asymmetric but generally self-propelled artillery, SAM sites and so on are all mobile, the size of them is directly related to the capability. Smaller more survivable stuff is also far less capable, it'd be important alongside 'legacy' stuff in trying to push any invasion back into the sea.
That said, I actually agree that Taiwan trying to pretend it can achieve any parity at sea or in the air is insane and pursuing missiles for striking the mainland is a waste of resources. It does need a lot of more survivable stuff, yes, but it also needs those legacy items too. The procument may take a while but eventually the current slew of equipment does need to be upgraded. I'd want to see lots of missile boats, lots of drones, lots of antiship missiles and air defense systems but those need to complement other assets too.

It's impressive how components or individuals of the US military can veer from obtusely hidebound to wantonly genocidal in the same theaters and time periods.

Has the definition of genocide changed? As for hidebound, well the military is a big bureaucracy serving an even bigger bureaucracy. Systematic change and accountability is the way to change the current culture which is callous when considering collateral. I'm fully an advocate for holding people accountable as well as those in the chain of command that enabled or covered up said mistakes.

Ukraine: US troops on alert as West voices unity
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60118193

The Pentagon has said some 8,500 combat-ready US troops are on alert to deploy at short notice.

But they would only be deployed if the Nato military alliance decides to activate a rapid-reaction force, "or if other situations develop", said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.

There are no plans to deploy to Ukraine itself, he added.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_190458.htm

In 2022, the VJTF will comprise a multinational force of several thousand troops. The Franco-German brigade of 3,500 troops will serve as the core of the force, drawing on the 1st Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Hussar Regiment. Led by France’s Rapid Reaction Corps in Lille, the Franco-German brigade is a bi-national unit, underlining the strong bond between NATO Allies Germany and France. Other NATO countries, including Spain, Portugal, and Poland will also provide forces. The majority of the force is comprised of units from the lead brigade.

Glad something is being done to at the least reassure the eastern half of the alliance. Interesting to see the Truman carrier group put under NATO directly, something that hasn't happened since the 1980s. The current Rapid-Reaction forces are led by France and the core unit is the Franco-German brigade so France and Germany would have to agree to action for NATO to be capable of reaction, something I see as extremely unlikely and a good highlight of the problems in achieving NATO unity, though putting them on alert and doing the planning for mobilizing will be a necessity to find the sticking points politically and militarily.